Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 1894/10 () of 22.12.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T189410.20101222
Date of decision: 22 December 2010
Case number: T 1894/10
Application number: 04017657.0
IPC class: B23F 21/10
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.298K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Resharpenable pinion type cutter with arbitrary tooth shape
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101
Keywords: Inadmissibility of the appeal - missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This matter concerns the appeal against the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office posted on 6 April 2010 refusing European patent application No. 04017657.0.

II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal on 16 June 2010 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, and Rule 101(1) EPC.

III. By a communication dated 20 September 2010, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery and received on 21 September 2010, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

IV. No response was made to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation